Discussion of the effectiveness of hybrid project management methodology

70

71 and quickest way possible. Four of the respondents know Hybrid to be a combination of any of the traditional methodologies, such as Prince2, with Agile. Their organisations have defined a standard methodology as a base in which Agile can be embedded by taking some elements from each of the methodologies and combining them to create a Hybrid method for product delivery. The remaining three respondents have not been directly involved with implementing a Hybrid methodology but have been working in project teams where a combination of Waterfall and Agile practices have been implemented informally as product delivery is underway. In this case, combining two methodologies would not have been decided at the beginning of the project, but rather team members deciding as the project is in progress to implement Hybrid in pursuit of delivering a successful product quicker.

6.2.2 Implementing Hybrid

Siriram (2017) argued that the success of Hybrids lies on Agile practices being used at operational and tactical levels, whereas the Stage-Gate model is used at the strategic level. The respondents specified that most organisations are introducing Agile practices at tactical, operational and strategic levels, as they make the organisation smaller, easier and more flexible.

Mahadevan et al. (2015) observed the isolation of development teams as a critical success factor for Hybrids. This permitted the continuing of project deliverables without interruption of work. The respondents concur that at the core of implementing a Hybrid method successfully, is the formulation of project teams with human resources dedicated fully to the project at hand. However, the defined financial model may not cater to having dedicated resources as required. Despite this, Jaziri et al.

(2018) contend development team isolation can lead to further isolation of the department from the entire company. However, in contrast to this, Magistretti et al.

(2019) proposed integration through the interface of Agile development teams using the requirements of the gates model. Auer and Rosenberger (2018) contended that this interface of development teams, assists in managing change and attitudes of department members. Of which the respondents share a similar view in that a clear definition of team member roles eliminates potential ambiguities and co-location allows for easy access for team members to be able to make decisions swiftly.

72 A study by Magistretti et al. (2019) found that for the successful implementation of Hybrid methods, an organisation needs ambidextrous design, dedicated assets, heterogeneous staffing, continuous learning, and modularisation. Auer and Rosenberger (2018) argued that though Agile-Stage-Gate Hybrid methods are regarded as suitable in all development projects; empirical evidence is growing on better benefits being realised in more uncertain and ambiguous conditions. The respondents argued that if the choice of implementing a Hybrid method is based on the requirements of a project rather than size or cost, there should not be problems experienced from a methodology perspective. The only problem is that limited exposure to project management methodologies may inhibit the effective implementation of a Hybrid method, in that there is a bigger risk of struggling to understand how to combine two methodologies, and at which stage, in order to get the balancing act correct.

Mapongwana (2016) explored the integration of traditional software development methodology into Agile software development methodology, relating to this study, by combining two project management methodologies (traditional and Agile) to exploit the benefits that come from using the best of both worlds. In the current study, this integration culminates into a Hybrid project management methodology, seeking similar benefits when implemented effectively. Implementing a Hybrid model reduces re-work through flexibility to allow changes to be implemented timeously throughout the project (Sommer et al., 2015). On the contrary, if the two methods of traditional and Agile are not carefully combined to formulate a Hybrid model they may bring in an element of re-work which delays project completion and may cause the project to fail according to the views shared by the respondents.

According to Cooper and Sommer (2016); Conforto and Amaral (2016); Jaziri et al.

(2018); Cooper and Sommer (2018); and Magistretti et al. (2019), no one methodology can be regarded as the best in achieving excellent project performance and this has led to a proposition of using a balanced approach that combines Agile and Stage-Gate into a singular Hybrid method to achieve success in the consistently evolving business environment. Therefore, latest research posits that Hybrid project management methodology can be used in small and large organisation, across industries, in software and hardware product development, including manufacturing companies, for IT and non-IT projects be it small or large. Most of the respondents have expressed that implementing Hybrid as the method of the future would speed

73 up delivery, provide more effectiveness throughout the lifecycle of a project, and enhance project success. They, therefore, advocate for a combination of two methods to be able to get the best of both methods by applying certain elements from each method throughout the project lifecycle, rather than implementing a single method that may not be suitable or effective.

6.2.3 Informally implementing Hybrid

The respondents agree that in some instances, the Hybrid methodology is implemented without the organisation, formalising the Hybrid process, and not labelling it as such. Some members of the project team may choose to incorporate another methodology to the one they had been using during the project delivery process when the need arises, which would mean they are using a Hybrid method which was not necessarily defined or selected at the start of the project. This is to ensure the success of the project.

Most of the respondents use Hybrid in their organisations, not by default, but by having to plug in a secondary methodology to their standard methodology for various reasons. These include involving a service provider that uses a different method or on the realisation of requiring a different way to the process of delivery.

6.2.4 Ensuring Hybrid effectiveness

With the project methodology, customisation and utilising a Hybrid form, comparison can be done in a common way that seeks to exploit the strength of both Agile and Traditional methods (Mahadevan et al., 2015). According to Papadopoulos (2018), ITMF permits methodology comparison on similar concepts and standardised information. However, the ITMF is non-prescriptive and is based on a mixed model philosophy to be customised to fit the culture and unique challenges faced by the organisation (Pollard & Geisler, 2014), whereby it consolidates the various phases of project lifecycle management into five simplified phases. These are: request;

define; build; deploy; and run. The respondents have identified five themes for ensuring the effective implementation of a Hybrid methodology throughout the project lifecycle while considering the five phases in the ITMF. According to the respondents, the themes listed as training, governance, project requirements, organisational culture, technical support, awareness campaign, and change

74 management should be considered and ensured in the applicable stages project lifecycle as defined by the ITMF. The overall five phases as explained by Pollard and Geisler (2014) are as follows:

1. The request stage, which presents the project goals and objectives motivating the need for change.

2. The define stage, which presents the project plans, specifications, requirements, and execution.

3. The build stage, also known as the implementation stage, delivery construction is done through the project resources procurement.

4. The deployment stage comprises of delivery integration, testing and running at business level and within the actual environment it will be used. This fits well in the verification and testing stages within the System Development Life Cycle (SDLC) methodology.

The run stage consists of transitioning from the project owners to the business owners. In addition, full support is given in the operationalisation and adoption processes after project delivery.

The respondents agree that at the request and define stages, the governance elements of Hybrid need to be standard and clearly understood across the organisation. Requirements should be tightly specified upfront with little opportunity to change to avoid back and forth delays from customers constantly changing their mind. Training of the project team is key, if the team is not trained and aligned in their thinking of implementing Hybrid, there are bound to be misalignments and problems with delivery. People have to be constantly trained on how to incorporate a new methodology into the existing one in order to formulate and implement an effective Hybrid model, therefore the right level of technical and management training becomes key.

Technical support is where the crux of the matter is. When building and deploying a solution, information technology specialists or the back-end developers need to be right on top of things. They need to communicate and be able to make sure that whatever they release to the customer or end-user at that particular time, has been thoroughly tested as the iterative approach is being done. Product delivery should be carefully constructed in the product development stage. The next stage is to allow a business to run various tests on the usage of the new or improved solution by trying

75 to break the solution as much as possible to ensure it is built accordingly and delivers the expected results before it can be productionised.

Lastly, when the solution gets handed over and is fully operational, it is important to run initiatives that will socialise the organisation to the implemented solution. Change management is required for user adoption and managing the organisational culture towards the change. Therefore, the loop of culture change to the implementation of a new Hybrid model gets closed at the run stage.

The implementation of this cross-platform methodology empowers organisations to successfully implement a stable, adaptive reporting matrix at a strategic management level. The methodology provides timely monitoring and control along with the project lifecycle change from inception to beyond execution. Therefore, the ITMF can be a Hybrid framework that blends various methodologies and models to form a single delivery-oriented ICT environment that helps IT to deliver change at the speed of business (Pollard & Geisler, 2014).

In contrast, a study by Cooper and Sommer (2018) found the critical factors for successful Hybrid methods as resolving inconsistencies, addressing management scepticism, finding resources, defining sprint deliverables and matching projects to processes. Respondents assert that awareness sessions with all stakeholders including end-users, sponsors and process owners should be continuously conducted through to project delivery and beyond, just to give them feedback or background information on what Hybrid is and why this approach. This process facilitates stakeholder buy-in and adoption.